peter hates software: Mail programs that don't tell you where links are going.

From: peter (Peter da Silva)
Date: 17:05 on 21 Apr 2007
Subject: Mail programs that don't tell you where links are going.
Even Apple ****-ing mail does this. If someone puts a link in an
HTML mail message, the only way to see where the link is going
before you get there is to copy the link and paste it somewhere,
or view source.
Making the link show up in hovertext or in a status line would
reduce the ability of phishers to fool people by about thirty
Raffles Units (the standard unit for measuring the effectiveness
of a con job), and it's something that I've just assumed Apple,
Microsoft, and everyone else would figure out any day now. But no,
this must be one of those things that's obviously not obvious.

From: Robert Rothenberg
Date: 19:16 on 21 Apr 2007
Subject: Re: Mail programs that don't tell you where links are going.
I've never noticed, because most of the HTML e-mail I get is SPAM anyway.
On 21/04/07, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Even Apple ****-ing mail does this. If someone puts a link in an> HTML mail message, the only way to see where the link is going> before you get there is to copy the link and paste it somewhere,> or view source.
>
> Making the link show up in hovertext or in a status line would> reduce the ability of phishers to fool people by about thirty> Raffles Units (the standard unit for measuring the effectiveness> of a con job), and it's something that I've just assumed Apple,> Microsoft, and everyone else would figure out any day now. But no,> this must be one of those things that's obviously not obvious.
>
>
>

From: Peter da Silva
Date: 20:53 on 21 Apr 2007
Subject: Re: Mail programs that don't tell you where links are going.
Judging by what I see, most of the mail most people get is HTML
And I've got legitimate mail from places like Paypal in HTML format,
which means these phishers are actually credible... and would be a lot
less so if the link was obviously seen to be at
"http://10.23.34.45:6789/paypal.com/&quot;.
And of course the link sometimes points to an exploit page, so a good
deal of the spam you get is via botnets set up by taking advantage of
this hatefully missing feature, or is trying to take advantage of its
lack.
So even though you don't directly suffer from it, you're not immune to
the effects. :(

From: Zach White
Date: 21:48 on 21 Apr 2007
Subject: Re: Mail programs that don't tell you where links are going.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 11:05:40AM -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
> Even Apple ****-ing mail does this. If someone puts a link in an> HTML mail message, the only way to see where the link is going> before you get there is to copy the link and paste it somewhere,> or view source.
No, it's there. Can you guess how you see it? If you guessed a preference
option, a hidden preference via the defaults system, or some other place
that shouldn't be logical but is given the state of computering today,
you're wrong.
Instead, it's in the most logical place, but it's incredibly finicky to
trigger. You have to hover over the link long enough, without moving. I
think it's somewhere around 5 seconds. If you move that timer resets.
I don't think they could have made it more infuriating. Even not having
the hover at all is an improvement over the current state.
-Zach

From: Patrick Quinn-Graham
Date: 21:57 on 21 Apr 2007
Subject: Re: Mail programs that don't tell you where links are going.
On 21-Apr-07, at 9:48 PM, Zach White wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 11:05:40AM -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:>> Even Apple ****-ing mail does this. If someone puts a link in an>> HTML mail message, the only way to see where the link is going>> before you get there is to copy the link and paste it somewhere,>> or view source.
>
> No, it's there. Can you guess how you see it? If you guessed a > preference> option, a hidden preference via the defaults system, or some other > place> that shouldn't be logical but is given the state of computering today,> you're wrong.
>
> Instead, it's in the most logical place, but it's incredibly > finicky to> trigger. You have to hover over the link long enough, without > moving. I> think it's somewhere around 5 seconds. If you move that timer resets.
Oddly for me it's about a second, maybe slightly less. So it seems
perfectly in line with the amount of time other tool-tips take to
show up on screen. Though it doesn't show up for plain text messages
(though that kind of makes sense I suppose - the link is exactly what
it says in that case).
~patrick

From: David Cantrell
Date: 00:54 on 22 Apr 2007
Subject: Re: Mail programs that don't tell you where links are going.
Peter da Silva wrote:
> Even Apple ****-ing mail does this. If someone puts a link in an> HTML mail message, the only way to see where the link is going> before you get there is to copy the link and paste it somewhere,> or view source.
FWIW, Thunderbird DTRT, putting the URL in the status bar at the bottom
of the window. Of course, that it handles HTML at all is Hateful, as it
panders to the hateful people who choose to use HTML mail.

From: peter (Peter da Silva)
Date: 01:59 on 22 Apr 2007
Subject: Re: Mail programs that don't tell you where links are going.
> FWIW, Thunderbird DTRT, putting the URL in the status bar at the bottom > of the window. Of course, that it handles HTML at all is Hateful, as it > panders to the hateful people who choose to use HTML mail.
Jolly good. And unsurprising, since it's a mozilla spinoff. Now how to inject
the clue into Apple and Microsoft?

From: Andrew Black - lists
Date: 09:37 on 22 Apr 2007
Subject: HTML Mail - was Re: Mail programs that don't tell you where links are going.
David Cantrell wrote:
> FWIW, Thunderbird DTRT, putting the URL in the status bar at the bottom > of the window. Of course, that it handles HTML at all is Hateful, as it > panders to the hateful people who choose to use HTML mail.
I think that "choose" is quite a strong word. For what ever reason they
use the Email client that is put in front of them, probably the
corporate IT standard or the one that is on the machine when they get
it. Or they use a hotmail account because that is the easiest way of
getting email that isn't tied to a particular machine.
Someone somewhere has decided that these programs/ webmail systems
default to HTML and made it as hard for a non techy person to switch it
off. But it is not the person sending it who has deliberately chosen this.

From: David Cantrell
Date: 13:36 on 22 Apr 2007
Subject: Re: HTML Mail - was Re: Mail programs that don't tell you where links are going.
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 09:37:19AM +0100, Andrew Black - lists wrote:
> David Cantrell wrote:> >FWIW, Thunderbird DTRT, putting the URL in the status bar at the bottom > >of the window. Of course, that it handles HTML at all is Hateful, as it > >panders to the hateful people who choose to use HTML mail.> I think that "choose" is quite a strong word. For what ever reason they > use the Email client that is put in front of them, probably the > corporate IT standard ...
That's exactly why I said "choose" and didn't just berate anyone who
sends the bloody stuff. In this case, the person who chose to inflict
that email client on them and not train them in how to set it up
and use it properly is the Hateful one.
> Or they use a hotmail account because that is the easiest way of > getting email that isn't tied to a particular machine.
If they value their own convenience over looking like a twat that's
their prerogative. In this case, I'm afraid that the user has indeed
chosen to do it.

From: Jarkko Hietaniemi
Date: 14:13 on 22 Apr 2007
Subject: Re: HTML Mail - was Re: Mail programs that don't tell you where links are going.
> That's exactly why I said "choose" and didn't just berate anyone who> sends the bloody stuff. In this case, the person who chose to inflict> that email client on them and not train them in how to set it up> and use it properly is the Hateful one.> >> Or they use a hotmail account because that is the easiest way of >> getting email that isn't tied to a particular machine.> > If they value their own convenience over looking like a twat that's> their prerogative. In this case, I'm afraid that the user has indeed> chosen to do it.
Oftem I blame collective stupidity in that case, instead of individual
one: quite many people seem to have chosen Webmail Brand X "because all
their friends use the same", since as we all know one cannot send email
between different email service providers.